Jonathan Witt reports at evolution news on a letter in Newsweek.
George Will says the theory of intelligent design isn’t falsifiable—isn’t “a testable hypothesis.” Actually, particular design arguments are falsifiable. Design theorist Michael Behe, for instance, argues that we can detect design in the bacterial flagellum because the tiny motor needs all of its parts to function at all. That’s a problem for Darwinian evolution, which builds novel form one tiny functional mutation at a time. How to falsify Behe’s argument? Provide a detailed evolutionary pathway from simple ancestor to present motor. The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe’s argument that such design is detectable would have been falsified.
Desperately trying to shed its veil of scientific vacuity, intelligent design and its supporters are trying to give ID some scientific credibility but at what cost? We see the argue move from the realization that Intelligent Design is not falsifiable to ‘particular design arguments [about the flagellum] are falsifiable’ although the flagellum may still be intelligently designed… Wow. Is Witt serious here?….
In this case Jonathan Witt argues that ID is falsifiable and that when science provides a sufficiently specific pathway for the evolution of the flagellum that, although the flagellum may still be designed, a particular claim has been falsified. Note that first of all Intelligent Design is not falsified but a particular claim that because science cannot yet explain the evolution of the flagellum, it is thus designed and this design can be ‘detected’ through our ignorance.
As others before me have pointed out, much of ID’s claims are scientifically vacuous. This response by Jonathan Witt is in my opinion not much different.
In my argument against Intelligent Design Theory I will not contend that it is not falsifiable or that it implies contradictions. I’ll argue that Intelligent Design Theory doesn’t imply anything at all, i.e. it has no content. By ‘content’ I refer to a body of determinate principles and propositions entailed by those principles. By ‘principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue. By ‘determinate principle’ I refer to a proposition of central importance to the theory at issue in which the extensions of its terms are clearly defined.
I’ll evaluate the work of William Dembski because he specifies his methodology in detail, thinks Intelligent Design Theory is contentful and thinks Intelligent Design Theory (hereafter ‘IDT’) grounds an empirical research program.1 Later in the paper I assess a recent trend in which IDT is allegedly found a better home as a metascientific hypothesis, which serves as a paradigm that catalyzes research. I’ll conclude that, whether IDT is construed as a scientific or metascientific hypothesis, IDT lacks content.
Source: Ryan Nichols, Scientific content, testability, and the vacuity of Intelligent Design theory The American Catholic philosophical quarterly, 2003 ,vol. 77 ,no 4 ,pp. 591 - 611
Similarly
Patrick Fran in On the Assumption of Design concludes that
Abstract
The assumption of design of the universe is examined from a scientific perspective. The claims of William Dembski and of Michael Behe are unscientific because they are a-theoretic. The argument from order or from utility are shown to be indeterminate, circular, to rest on psychological as opposed to factual certainty, or to be insupportable as regards humans but possibly not bacteria, respectively. The argument from the special intelligibility of the universe specifically to human science does not survive comparison with the capacities of other organisms. Finally, the argument from the unlikelihood of physical constants is vitiated by modern cosmogonic theory and recrudesces the God-of-the-gaps.
and
That is, neither claim is grounded in a scientifically valid theoretical matrix. Only a rigorously deductive theory permits a closed prediction, thus risking falsification, and scientific data derive their meaning only in the context of such theory. Absent a deductive, unambiguous, and falsifiable theory of design, there simply cannot be a scientifically valid context for data to be evidence of a design. Data cannot signify design without a scientific theory of design to grant them that significance. This point is implicit in at least one critique.
Given this lack of theory, a judgment for design can follow itemization and elimination of all possible sources of spontaneous physical order and complexity. In this light, claiming to have a “design filter” is identical to claiming an ability to exclude every relevant cause and instance of spontaneous order in the universe. This means being able to deploy infinite theoretical and factual knowledge, respectively, about sources of such order. The claim of irreducible complexity is more modest. It alleges an infinitely complete list of all possible channels of organizmal evolution by stating unambiguously that some given biological system could not have arisen through evolutionary process. The claim is not only that there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms, but further that there never will be an evolutionary explanation, in principle. This is an impossible claim, purporting knowledge about the content of future knowledge. In general, then, without a scientifically deductive theory of design, design order can be asserted only when all possible instances of spontaneous physical (or biological) order are factually eliminated. In the absence of either deductive theory or of infinite factual surety one is left with no means to make a judgment. Consequently, an assertion stemming from the a-theoretic position of either Dr Dembski or Professor Behe devolves to one made from ignorance because knowledge infinities are not now available to us, nor are they ever likely to be. Indeed, this refutation of asserted design is already of long-standing.
Jonathan Witt also seems to reject Dembski’s claim that a design inference cannot suffer from false positives. This is very relevant since the possibility of false positives makes a design inference ‘useless’.
By arguing, although incorrectly, that Intelligent Design is falsifiable, Jonathan Witt has undermined the relevancy of the explanatory filter to Intelligent Design.
177 Comments
386sx · 20 July 2005
Patrick Fran (above): "This point is implicit in at least one critique."
Patrick Fran (above): "Indeed, this refutation of asserted design is already of long-standing."
Duane Smith: "Anyone reading this letter and not knowing much biology, and that is most readers, would think that there has been no attempt to falsify Behe's flagellum argument."
I'm sensing some frustration here on the part of the ID critics. Are the ID "Fellows" ignoring these critiques? Do they ever address this stuff?
steve · 20 July 2005
Randall Wald · 20 July 2005
The funny thing is, Witt claims that a sufficiently detailed story would be a falsification of a given instance of ID, but everyone here knows that were such a story created (and in many cases, these have been created), Witt et all would deride it as a "just-so story" and claim that nothing has been proven. Seriously, who does he think he's kidding?
steve · 20 July 2005
snaxalotl · 21 July 2005
steve · 21 July 2005
The whole notion is broken ten ways to Sunday.
By the way, there are forms of ID which are falsifiable. Behe's original claim that IC systems cannot in principle evolve, is false as hell. When it becomes unfalsifiable is that everytime you thwart their argument, they special plead. You can't falsify a system of interminable special pleading.
Dembski does that too.
"Algorithms can't produce CSI."
"Look, this one does."
"Uh, that's apparent CSI, not uh...actual...CSI."
steve · 21 July 2005
ID is just like astrology in the endless special pleading.
"Ah, you fell off that horse because of Venus."
"That wasn't me, that was my brother."
"Oh, silly me, I forgot to account for the meteor shower. That explains why your wife left."
"No, she's still here."
"Umm...ooo, that comet, I forgot...."
SEF · 21 July 2005
ts · 21 July 2005
ts · 21 July 2005
Raven · 21 July 2005
SEF · 21 July 2005
The glass isn't highly designed though, because of its amorphous disorganised nature (equivalent to one measure of high entropy). It isn't put together in some patterned manner of the sort which falls in between the total order of a perfect crystal and the total disorder of a volume of gas - both of which happen automatically. If it were patterned/structured in that fashion and the nature of that interacted with the other hierarchies of components in the whole watch then that would make it more likely to be evolved than singularly designed (by extending the depth of the structuredness - which I hope might be equivalent to the fractal level of it were there to be a formula).
HPLC_Sean · 21 July 2005
So some of these ID guys have degrees in Molecular Biology?
Have they ever stopped to think about how one tiny mutation can potentially change the shape of a protein's active site enough to increase its catalytic activity a million fold or attenuate it a million fold?
One tiny mutation therefore potentially has the power to give an organism a survival advantage just as it potentially has the power to condemn that organism.
By the way, the watch *cannot* be compared to the grass. The watch is very obviously designed because it doesn't grow, or reproduce. It just corrodes and stops working. The grass grows, seeds (reproduces with all of the possible mutations and crossover events), and dies. The comparison reminds me of CEWagner's analogy of computers and brain cells. They have NOTHING in common so they cannot be used to support or refute ID.
Raven · 21 July 2005
Longhon · 21 July 2005
I'm not sure what George Will and Jonathan Witt mean by "intelligent design" and "falsifiable." But some claims offered by some people who have referred to themselves as "proponents of intelligent design" are falsifiable, given what I think they mean. Because some of the claims are false. It's clear that the event referred to didn't occur. For instance, some people who I have seen refer to themselves as "proponents of intelligent design" have said that a deity turned dust -- poof! -- directly into two elephants (one male and one female). But that didn't occur. The first organisms to live on earth that were anatomically very similar to modern elephants were born by their mothers in much the same way I was born by mine. In fact, self-replicating molecules evolved (through reproduction) into all the organisms to live on earth.
I've seen other people who have referred to themselves as "proponents of intelligent design" say that humans and chimps do not share common ancestors. So presumably they think a deity or extraterrestrial turned dust -- poof! -- directly into two humans and/or two chimps. But that didn't occur. Self-replicating molecules evolved (through reproduction) into all the organisms to live on earth. So me and "the Bear" from "BJ and the Bear" share common ancestors.
Some people have suggested that a deity or extraterrestrial turned inert matter (or "nothingness") -- Zap! -- directly into the first bacterial flagellum to be on earth. But that didn't occur. The first thing that was anatomically very similar to a modern bacterial flagellum came into being through cell division. I personally don't know the exact moment in time the first bacterial flagellum appeared on earth. Sexual reproduction may not have even evolved yet. But cells divide. And sometimes the daughter-cell has a genome that is different than the genome of its parent-cell. Various kinds of events can contribute to daughter-cell having a genome that is different than the genome of its parent-cell. But a deity probably did not specifically intervene and cause the daughter-cell to have the genome that it did. So the claim that "a deity or extraterrestrial turned inert matter (or "nothingness") -- Zap! -- directly into the first bacterial flagellum to be on earth" is "falsifiable." The event referred to didn't occur. Or if you are uncomfortable with the expression of certainty, it is overwhelmingly probable that the event did not occur.
chip poirot · 21 July 2005
I think a better and stronger critique of ID is that it is not a coherent research tradition. It does not articulate a potentially fruitful and coherent problem solving strategy. It does not make any predictions. The one thing it does attempt to do is to offer to "account for" observations. Nor does it generate any substantive set of standards by which to evaluate its own propositions.
Compared to evolutionary theory it has no content gain and only content loss.
If we are going to use the term "falsifiable" we have to be very precise as to what sense we are using the term.
Entire research traditions are not directly "falsifiable". They should be capable of deriving specific hypotheses that can be a) supported and b) tested. Specific theories and hypotheses should be capable of being discredited. But this dichotomy of "reject/accept"is a bad dichotomy.
The question is does ID have a coherent problem solving strategy? And the answer is a clear no.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 21 July 2005
ID advocates don't seem to understand that "falsifiability" has a definition and that they don't get to re-define the term to their liking.
PvM · 21 July 2005
Well put Wesley. ID proponents use a version of 'falsification' which does not place intelligent design as a theory at risk. Of course, one cannot blame them, since there is no real theory of intelligent design in the first place.
All that is put at risk is our ignorance. Bruce Chapman, in a recent essay, avoids dealing with these issues and focuses on strawmen arguments to 'attack' critics of intelligent design. Until ID explains what it's theory of ID really is, it remains scientifically vacuous.
ID, once all its rhetoric is removed, deflates to nothing more that ignorance.
SEF · 21 July 2005
ts · 21 July 2005
ts · 21 July 2005
SEF · 21 July 2005
That's not glass nor a watch though. Odd that you can't tell the difference.
As it happens I had already thought ahead to the computer analogy - hence saying "singularly designed". A lot of things about computers have almost evolved through having multiple designers, some of whom were decidedly unintelligent. The fractal level of that amount of design starts much smaller but isn't much deeper. The larger scale of the internet is very much not a designed thing but an uncontrolled growing thing - like my example of human society. I deliberately avoided specifying the computer example in order to see when it would finally turn up and whether people would see the levels as being analogous to the other examples. It seems you didn't.
Longhorn · 21 July 2005
bill · 21 July 2005
That's true. One of those elephants got turned into stone. I saw it with my own eyes at the Tulsa Zoo.
Alan · 21 July 2005
Longhorn
TS's posts aren't always clear to him, let alone others! :P
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 July 2005
ts · 22 July 2005
> That's not glass nor a watch though. Odd that you can't tell the difference.
Odd that you make unwarranted assumptions as to what I can tell from what. Looks like bad faith to me.
ts · 22 July 2005
> Some events that some people claim have occurred have not occurred. For instance, a deity did not turn dust directly into two elephants.
I agree, but such assertions have nothing to do with what Popper had in mind as falsification.
SEF · 22 July 2005
If you are claiming that you can tell the difference, ts, then that removes the doubt over your incompetence and puts you firmly in the dishonest category. You should probably demonstrate that you really can though somehow, since you could still be an incompetent person not really knowing what you were saying or realising the consequences of it.
Alan · 22 July 2005
And he didn't say sorry for upbraiding me for my correct usage of the word Schadenfreude.
ts · 22 July 2005
> If you are claiming that you can tell the difference, ts, then that removes the doubt over your incompetence and puts you firmly in the dishonest category.
I'm dishonest because you don't understand the relevance of my comment? Well, if it pleases you to think so.
> And he didn't say sorry for upbraiding me for my correct usage of the word Schadenfreude.
SEF wrote "It's not fair marketing them back to us like cheap plastic toys in the cornflakes or MacDonalds etc."
To which you responded "schadenfreude, SEF". If that's a correct usage, it certainly isn't discernable. It looks to me a lot more like karma or justice, which people often mistakenly refer to as schadenfreude.
Alan · 22 July 2005
I don't even know why I'm bothering.
SEF was (ironically) gloating about not having fundie/politico problems here in Europe and I(ironically)was indicating perhaps he shouldn't gloat so loud.
You, being the humourless pedant that you are, should be able to see that. I don't, however, expect you to admit it.
Regards et gros bisous.
SEF · 22 July 2005
No, your usage was not correct Alan. So I gave you an example of a correct and related circumstance about which it might have been used (but unfortunately some other posts got in the way in the meantime).
Alan · 22 July 2005
Ah, but I genuinely thought you were indulging in a little schadenfreude. (Still do in fact) So,in the context that I thought so, I was not incorrect to say so.
Alan · 22 July 2005
PS missed "So I gave you an example" post, Sorry. Ref?
Frank J · 22 July 2005
SEF · 22 July 2005
Alan · 22 July 2005
Are you referring to #38840?
I heartily agree with the sentiments expressed.Religious fundamentalism in an unholy alliance with the far right is becoming too powerful to be funny. But where's the semantic critique?
SEF · 22 July 2005
Yes, #38840 under CMC part 1 (so much for you yourself being any good at providing usable references). However, you seem to be just demonstrating further that you really don't understand the proper meaning of the word you used at all and/or that you are having more general difficulty comprehending what other people write (and not just my posts either). The fundamentalists are the ones taking joy in other people's misfortunes (whether real and imposed by fundamentalists or merely imagined by fundamentalists).
Alan · 22 July 2005
Sorry to be so obtuse. It is a trivial point but my use of the word in context was correct. In any case it was applied ironically. I seriously do have a difficult time deciphering some posts. The science can be hard. I and I hope many other laypeople will perservere.
Longhon · 22 July 2005
W. Kevin Vicklund · 22 July 2005
Longhorn, "false" and "falsifiable" mean two entirely things. False is a statement known to be incorrect. Falsifiable is a statement that could be proven incorrect, in theory, by evidence. A simple example of a falsifiable statement:
"I have not been kidnapped by aliens" is falsifiable because it is theoretically possible to produce evidence that I was indeed kidnapped by aliens. It may be a true statement, but it could in theory be countered by evidence.
Note that this is a very simplistic model of the term, and not everyone agrees with this model.
W. Kevin Vicklund · 22 July 2005
"two entirely different things" is what I meant to type.
Longhorn · 22 July 2005
ts · 22 July 2005
Katarina · 22 July 2005
Supernatural claims are never falsifiable, because all we have are natural tools with which to detect things.
ID is a supernatural claim. Am I being too simplistic here?
Longhon · 22 July 2005
ts · 22 July 2005
ts · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
ts · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
ts · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
ts · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
Flint · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
I think sometimes the issue of certainty gets in the way. A lot of people are uneasy with it. And I am, too. We've been wrong so many times before. And it's also important to be aware of relativity issues. For instance, velocity affects time and position.
But I think it is important not to be afraid to tell a person that they are mistaken. And then give reasons. I haven't done a very good job of giving reasons in this thread. I just don't want to use the energy.
But I'm confident -- and justifiably confident -- that self-replicating molecules evolved (through reproduction) into all the complex organisms to live on earth.
Flint · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
Do I know for certain that the earth is not shaped like a pancake? Maybe I don't. Descartes deals with this kind of issue in the Meditations. But let's say I'm not certain that the earth is not shaped like a pancake. It is probable that the earth is not shaped like a pancake.
Flint · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 22 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Alan · 23 July 2005
TS
If I had said your eyes were blue, when in fact they were brown, that would be an incorrect statement; not an indication that I misunderstood the meaning of "blue".
Alan · 23 July 2005
Or
If I were to aay that you wre a humourless pedant when in fact you were not; that would be an ad hominem.
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
steve · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
Alan · 23 July 2005
ts
If you weren't saying that I had used the word Schadenfreude whilst attributing some other meaning than "malicious enjoyment in others' misfortune" then I apologise.
Regarding ad hominem, I was not developing an argument, only making an observation. To say that you, judging by your posts, are pedantic and lack humour is not particularly pejorative and you may be unaware of how others perceive you.
I came to Panda's Thumb originally to learn about ID, having first encountered the name of Dembski on an unrelated discussion site a few months ago. Bill may be saddened to learn that his fame has hardly penetrated beyond the shores of North America.
I stayed to read the erudite posts of Elsberry, Reuland, Rosenhouse, Myers and others. I am grateful that they take the effort to defend Science and reason with such skill and patience. It amazes me that creationists (not their beliefs, - they are welcome to them - their aims and methods) are allowed to subvert the political sytem in the US. I expect Panda's Thumb is and will continue to make a valuable contribution to halting this tide of ignorance.
Philosophy is not of great interest to me, though Flint's posts are forcing me to reconsider. I shall take Rev Lenny Flank's advice regarding your posts.
Excuse the typos, please.
Alan · 23 July 2005
Lenny's wry posts are unfailingly entertaining. More power to his elbow.
SEF · 23 July 2005
To sum up:
- defamation depends on whether it's untrue and whether it's nasty. (NB Untrue things which are perceived as nice by consensus are not generally regarded as defamation because apparently honesty isn't actually of such great importance to many humans most of the time. Hence white lies, santa claus, tooth fairy et al.)
- ad hominem depends on whether it's irrelevant and whether it's nasty. (The relevance component does then have to include it being true for something not to be an ad hominem but merely being true is not enough on its own. Being nice but irrelevant would typically be sycophancy, woolly-mindedness etc.)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 23 July 2005
Raven · 23 July 2005
Katarina · 23 July 2005
Thank you for the responses. It is the most common argument, I suppose, to say as I did, that ID is not falsifiable because any supernatural claim cannot be falsified. I am still convinced of the validity of that argument.
And for Longhorn, what do I mean by supernatural? That is an excellent question. I mean, things beyond nature, whether you believe in there being anything beyond what you are able to observe, or not. We can only make observations with limited tools. Some of these tools may improve, like the telescope and microscope have, or the advent of biotechnology, allowing us to see further out an further in than our ancestors ever were able to. Yet we still can't quite boil down life to a set of biochemical reactions, though we've tried. We are still not even close to being able to view an organism, with all its complex interacting components, as a whole.
So how do we expect to be able to rule out "supernatural causes," as the IDers put it? I don't think we can. But for the same reason that supernatural causes cannot be ruled out, they also cannot be detected. And that reason is that our tools are physical, and we can only see the process, and the result, not necessarily the cause of an event. Even if we do find the cause, do we know what drove that cause, and that cause, and that cause? The questions are endless.
TS, your response makes sense. Although you have not weakened my faith in my original simplistic argument, it is also a good argument that one cannot falsify the statement, "This outcome could not have come about by any natural means," because there are too many variables, too many paths that the process could have taken to produce the final outcome. This thread helped me see that.
I know y'all like to knit-pick, which is why I feel a little intimidated to post a comment here, as I am more of a simple person. But heck, bring it on. I -almost- always learn something.
Alan · 23 July 2005
SEF
Would you care to elaborate on the danger of organised fundamentalism in Europe?
Where in Europe do you see state education, local or national politics infiltrated or otherwise under threat from fundies etc to anything like the extent that is happening in the USA?
I concede we would be under threat indirectly should the creationists achieve their ultimate goal in the USA.
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Katarina · 23 July 2005
Longhorn,
"Poof" isn't the only way a deity could work. A deity could also proceed through driving the chance events, such as genetic mutations, environmental conditions, disasters, all those things that may drive natural selection, or provide a gene pool for natural selection to choose from. A deity could work its will in many different ways, obvious, subtle, or hidden.
One of the main tenets of belief in a deity is faith, and that takes a search beyond the natural. Whether or not one is willing to explore that, is an individual choice. That choice may be diminished if the deity appeared on the 5 o'clock news, making itself obvious to everyone.
The problem is that you are only considering a straw-man version of religion, and that is not fair. You are indeed, masturbating to your own tune.
Alan · 23 July 2005
Perhaps my definition of not philosophy would involve getting out of an armchair. As a training tool for critical thinking or ad hoc, I'm sure philosophy has its uses.
As I said before, Science, especially the new developments that are regularly expounded here, and the unbelievable posturings if the ID community are what fascinate me.
Flint seems genuine, patient and knowledgable. I'm sure he will answer the question.
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
Alan · 23 July 2005
The Karl Marx quote of Lenny's seems quite apt. Science involves doing the work, experiments, to gather evidence in support of a particular hypothesis. Philosophical arguments may then be employed in support of that hypothesis.You may do this in an armchair, possibly now with a laptop. Ad hoc just means for a particular purpose rather than generally.
I don't know enough about philosophy to offer any kind of endorsement.
It is impossible to be a polymath these days, so one is forced to choose areas of interest. Philosophy doesn't get my pulse racing. Perhaps you could correct my assessment with a few examples of its usefulness.
Alan · 23 July 2005
Or to misquote "The Life of Brian", what has philisophy ever done for us?
Katarina · 23 July 2005
Longhorn,
First, I am sorry about the last sentance in my last comment. It was immature.
You are right, some supernatural events may have been observed, but what proof does the observer have that they were suprenatural, and not a magic trick? Many people do claim to have been witnesses to miraculous events. It still remains a matter of faith.
Yes, someone could have faith in a fantasy. Having faith in something does not add any validity to the object of faith.
I am not really sure what your final point is, but I can appreciate your Socratic approach of asking everyone to define their terms. I use "faith" as it is commonly defined, as a trust -a choice to believe, with our without evidence- that something is true, or exists, or will happen. The exact nature of the thing can be left to be explored further.
Some people have faith that only what is observable is real. Others have faith that there is a reality beyond what may be observed, and that we are fish in a bowl. I happen to be the second kind of person, but that does not change my perception of the reality that can be observed. A certian level of confidence in what we know about the world is practical, but too much confidence in our knowledge makes me feel uncomfortable. I would rather there remain some mystery to life.
Sorry that I have flown off-topic.
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Longhon · 23 July 2005
SEF · 23 July 2005
Flint · 23 July 2005
I consider the philosophy important, not a waste of time, although TS is entirely correct that I sometimes fail to think through what I write. What I mean and what I say are not always as closely aligned as I'd like. This is occasionally true of all of us including TS, of course.
Science needs to be concerned with philosophy, if only to avoid wasting a lot of time attempting the impossible. And so I think Popper's ruminations are useful. After some re-reading, I see that Longhorn doesn't seem (to me) to understand that proving A cannot disprove B unless someone can prove that A and B are mutually exclusive. Longhorn seems to think that if he can show beyond any reasonable doubt that someone traveled from A to D by going through C, he has somehow demonstrated that someone ELSE didn't go from A to D by going through B. Thus, if he can show that all known elephants derive from method A, therefore no elephants could possibly have derived from method B. But these are not mutually exclusive. To be falsifiable, a hypothesis must be vulnerable to a performable, direct contradictory observation.
What complicates this philosophical discussion is that religious statements are not bound by Popper's logic. When a creationist says that evolution has never been observed, this is by all appearances a falsifiable claim. Just show the observation of evolution. But in practice, it is a policy statement, not an evidence-based statement. Evolution DOES NOT HAPPEN, by (creationist) definition. Therefore, it cannot have been observed. Therefore, anyone pointing to actual observation of evolution is either lying, or misunderstands what he sees. He cannot be seeing evolution, because evolution DOES NOT HAPPEN.
So creationist claims can be unfalsifiable in two entirely distinct senses. In Popper's sense (and Longhorn's), the claim that some god POOF created elephants from dust is not falsifiable, because it is not possible to observe a deity NOT creating elephants out of dust. This is the evidence-based sense of falsifiability. However vanishingly unlikely any reasonable model renders such an event, it MIGHT have happened. It's impossible to observe that it did not.
But when we turn this around, we run up against the other sense of falsifiable. We provide actual observation, without any ambiguity, and the Creationist says "Nope, don't see it, it didn't happen." This sounds simplistic, but frustratingly this is the primary defense surrounding creationism - the refusal to credit evidence contradicting doctrine. So we show that a flood did NOT happen, and this is ignored. The flood is not observed to be true, the flood is declared to be true. And no evidence can "disprove" such a declaration. We can link to hundreds of thousands of words showing beyond any rational doubt that creationist claims are observed to be false. But we can also observe (see the creationist conference threads) that all these words are useless. When Truth is not based on evidence, Truth cannot be displaced by evidence.
And so evolution is not rejected because the evidence isn't there, but because the evidence cannot be correct. Doctrine has said so. When the mechanism required by doctrine is magic, and magic can do whatever we should wish without any rules or restrictions, evidence cannot compete for minds, only for bodies.
Longhon · 23 July 2005
Alan · 23 July 2005
Peter Vardy A comparable threat? Yes he needs dealing with. But, come on, He represents no real threat to English culture. By the way, I live in France, so whilst ignorant of many things, world history is a subject that I am not permitted to lax in.
Alan · 23 July 2005
SEF
Peter Vardy A comparable threat? Yes he needs dealing with. But, come on, He represents no real threat to English culture. By the way, I live in France, so whilst ignorant of many things, world history is a subject that I am not permitted to be lax in.
Alan · 23 July 2005
Sorry for the double post, one of the many things of which I'm ignorant.
Alan · 23 July 2005
Longhon
If philosophy means "Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline" then I'm all for it. I'm a philosipher. We can all be philosiphers. Let's pursue truth. Let's learn from each other. Cut the debating crap. If you've got a good idea, let's hear it. If that's philosophy, I want to sign up.
ts · 23 July 2005
Alan · 23 July 2005
If anyone can explain how to stop spellcheck defaulting to home language I'd be grateful. Excuse typo, SB philosphers
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
Alan · 23 July 2005
But I'm concerned about violence. People hurting other people. We've got to discuss issues. We've got to stop hurting each other.
Whilst admirable sentiments, you are straying somewhat off-topic.
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
Alan · 23 July 2005
Logho(r)n wrote "Cooperation rather than confrontation"
The adverserial method of debate is a very poor method of discovering truth. The inquisatorial method of settling matters of fact before a formal trial or debate deserves consideration.
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
Oops, dratted html angle brackets. Make that
An ad hominem argument is of the form: F(x) -> not {a claim made by x}
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
SEF · 23 July 2005
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
> Longho[r]n's stream of strawmen concerning claims that he's justified in believing (which not only has been disputed, but has been reaffirmed numerous times)
Oops, make that "which not only has not been disputed".
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
ts · 23 July 2005
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
I wrote: "A deity did do it in 1 million years."
I meant a deity didn't do it in the last 1 million years.
Longhorn · 23 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
SEF · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Raven · 24 July 2005
SEF · 24 July 2005
Alan · 24 July 2005
Alan · 24 July 2005
By the way SEF if you'd said Turkey I would to have conceded half a point, as a little bit is in mainland Europe. Lets hope pressure will be exerted on the supposedly secular government by the EU that Turkey is so keen to join, for it to eliminate the thuggery against academics who wish to teach evoltuionary biology.
SEF · 24 July 2005
That's why I wouldn't have cited Turkey as an example. I think it's only pretending to be in Europe. The situation is much like all the Boundary Commission reorganisations in the UK - carried out for financial/political reasons rather than any genuine geographical, historical or cultural basis. Bournemouth was not happy to be ripped out of Hampshire and dumped in Dorset just to suit someone else's machinations. Some plate tectonics would be required to genuinely make Turkey part of Europe.
Flint · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
Flint, let me make a distinction.
1. Maybe the claim that a deity turned dust directly into the first two elephants to live on earth is not falsifiable. I don't know. But at least for the time being, I'm willing to grant that.
However,
2. I'm overwhelmingly justified in believing that a deity did not turn dust directly into the first two elephants to live on earth.
SEF · 24 July 2005
Longhorn, it's not about how justified you are or even the specific claim of the elephants. There is an important principle here which people are trying very hard to explain to you simply because it is so important - and it doesn't require you to have faith in anything in particular in order to understand it, so it's open to everyone! ;-) However, it does require you to settle your brain and think clearly and carefully and it's rather exasperating to everyone for you to act one moment as if you want to know what we are talking about and the next moment as if you don't care at all. Make up your mind but don't pretend to have tried if you haven't.
I don't like the way people refer to things as positive and negative claims since that can often be confused by the particular phrasing of the claim. Think of each claim as really being a pair of claims - only one version of which is falsifiable because it is possible to make an observation which falsifies it.
I'm going to use Martians. There may or may not be some - allowing for the definition of Martian to include even the most minimally alive thing. If the claim is that there are no Martians then the anti-claim to that is that there are Martians. Only one of these is falsifiable by direct observation.
In this case it's the original version of the claim - because finding a Martian would refute it immediately (after suitable confirmation!). The claim itself may or may not be true but at least it is falsifiable because it is possible to imagine and state an observation which would refute it.
On the other hand, the anti-claim is not falsifiable. There's no possible observation of there being no Martians. What would a no Martian look like? You could search Mars repeatedly and still not be sure you'd covered all of it - certainly not backwards and forwards in time too. The anti-claim might or might not be true but you could never really be sure, even if you convinced yourself that the chance of finding a Martian had become vanishingly small.
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
Flint · 24 July 2005
SEF · 24 July 2005
Longhorn, it's entirely possible that the only person who cares whether or not you are justified in believing X is you. It simply isn't relevant to the principle of falsification which we are trying to explain to you. Nor is it relevant to what reality might happen to be. That seems to be your sticking point. You don't seem to be able to accept that your personal opinion is irrelevant and even that the actual truth or falsity of a claim is irrelevant for this. Most of the time, whether something is true or not matters (at least to some people). Potential falsification is a rare instance in which it doesn't. Mind blowing stuff perhaps if you've carefully kept your mind small and idea-tight.
You ask whether part of my explanation is falsifiable but you still fail to follow the simple method I outlined to you. Make it a claim and anti-claim pair again:
(a) "the anti-claim is not falsifiable"
(b) "the anti-claim is falsifiable"
Now for (a) we can hypothetically imagine that there would be some example which turned up to falsify it whereas for (b) a non-refutation is not exclusive and we might search forever and never be sure we'd tried all potential refutations. So assertion (a) is potentially falsifiable but you'd have to actually find an example to do that - and I don't believe you are up to the task (for a very good reason).
From your posts, you clearly fall into the category of people I label mindless philosophers and sophists (and Lenny apparently likens to masturbaters). You don't care to really think things through properly but just to pretend to yourself (and to anyone else who'll fall for that pretence) that you have. There's been nothing much other than vacuous verbiage from you, repeatedly.
Flint · 24 July 2005
SEF:
What we see from Longhorn is unshakeable conviction. Creationists share this with him, producing equally unfalsifiable claims, except the creationists are convinced that THEIR claims are ratified by the friggin' Word Of God Itself! And a sounder ratification simply does not exist.
Consider that Dembski considers his faith to be likely to a degree of confidence exceeding 10^150. Is 10^150 more convicing than the Word of God? Is either one of these more resounding than Longhorn's conviction that elephants from dust is really really dumb? Step right up, folks, we have the all-time contest of battling endorsements, not one of which is sullied by a single grubby observation.
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Flint · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Flint · 24 July 2005
Longhorn:
Incidentally, just to give you a hint, all you need to record is someone NOT an alien putting the money there. That's a direct observation refuting the claim about an alien. And once again, that's what Popper was saying about specific and general claims (a point you have also ignored several times). A particular claim like this can be falsified by observation. The general claim ("Aliens sometimes put money on pillows) cannot be falsified, because doing so would require an infinite search, which is not possible.
Do you see the difference? The issue is always, whether a conflicting observation can be made.
ts · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
Flint, you yourself said that it is overwhelmingly probable that a deity did not turn dust directly into the first elephants to live on earth. You already said that earlier in the thread.
Also, the claims does seem falsifiable. Let's say we traveled the universe and came across a highly advanced alien civilian, and they showed us that they used a high-tech machine to turn dust into the first elephants. Let's say they have videotape.
But for the sake of argument let's say it's not. I'm justified in believing it. You even said it is overwhelmingly probable that a deity did not turn dust directly into the first elephants to live on earth.
ts · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
SEF · 24 July 2005
I wonder how widespread that (apparent) inability to comprehend falsifiability is. Perhaps demonstration of a comprehension of it could be among a set of minimum requirements to be tested and passed before someone is allowed to hold any science-based position (most importantly including teaching of course).
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 24 July 2005
ts · 24 July 2005
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
Flint, I looked through your posts again. I wasn't understanding what you were meaning by falsifiability. I understand better now. I appreciate the time you took to help me understand the term. I had never used it before. I had seen it used, but hadn't really thought about it.
Thanks for the time. Sorry if I came across as pig-headed.
Longhorn · 24 July 2005
TS, I just couldn't get my mind around the term "falsifiable."
This sentence of yours helped me a lot:
"It would be practically possible to locate aliens with a videotape showing that they created the first elephants on earth?"
The word "practically" helped a lot. Thanks
ts · 24 July 2005
Longhorn, it goes back to the idea of disproving that all crows are black. Disregard the fact that it's a bad example because we already know of instances of non-black crows; suppose in fact there weren't any. How then could anyone go about trying to disprove it? They would have to examine every single crow, but how could anyone be sure that was done? It's an unreasonable demand; it's not the sort of investigation we do in science. As has been noted, we try to disprove specific claims, not general ones. Your example of alien videotapes is the ultimate case of this sort of impractical falsifiability. It's absurd for someone (not you, but someone who has this religious view) to claim that "God created the first elephants from dust" is falsifiable just because it's conceivable that there might be aliens somewhere with such a videotape. There's no experiment or measurement we can conduct to determine whether such an alien videotape exists; it would require an insanely impractical universal search -- and even then we couldn't be sure that the videotape really documents what it is claimed that it documents. And the claims of intelligent design are unfalsifiable not because they aren't false, but because they are so vague and malleable that the intelligent design proponents can keep moving the goal posts. It's not a matter of whether you would move the goal posts, but of whether they are movable. Falsifiability is about scientific methodology, of how we keep science honest in spite of ourselves.